click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
the white house remove those rernss from u.n. ambassador susan rice's talking points. >>> let's starts with the developing story out of the middle east this morning. we'll start there by telling you about the civilian casualties during the sixth day of rocket strikes between israel and gaza. 80 palestinians have been killed and 600 more injured. among them, 12 people killed last night including four women and four children when an israeli missile targeting a top hamas leader leveled a three-story building. this morning, israeli forces backed by tanks are massed along the edge of the gaza border ready for a potential all out invasion. although president obama says it would be, quote, preferable to avoid a ground war, he is making support of israel clear. >> there's no country on earth that would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders so we are fully supportive of israel's right to defend itself from missiles landing on people's homes and workplaces and potentially killing civilians. >> joining us now from gaza is nbc's reporter. what's the latest this mo
's not stopping republicans from their witch hunt against susan rice. they say the u.n. ambassador isn't qualified for a promotion to secretary of state, because of her statements about the benghazi attacks. even though we know she was just going by the information she got from intelligence officials. bult but republicans don't want fact to get in the way. >> we will do whatever's necessary to block the nomination. >> this president and this administration has either been guilty of colossal incompetence or engaged in a cover-up. >> i don't trust her. the reason i don't trust her is because i think she knew better. and if she did know better, she shouldn't be the voice of america. >> and now 97 house republicans who have zero say over cabinet nominations, are opposing rice's possible nomination. they sent a letter to the white house saying her credibility has been wounded. they keep changing their story in this made-up conspiracy theory. i want to know why they're in such a frenzy over susan rice. joining me now is democratic congressman james clyburn from south carolina. he's the third highest ran
ambassador to the u.n. what about what's going on in the u.n. this week? with the palestinians looking to have their status -- there's an entire agenda. the idea that we're focusing on one set of talking points is ridiculous. >> i know you to be a pretty nonpartisan guy, do you smell anything fishy with this benghazi investigation or the way it was handled? do you sense any incompetence? because if you talk to john mccain or lindsey graham, you ask the question, are we talking about a cover-up or general inconfidence? >> the idea was, why did they turn down the all the added security? why did the ambassador go without adequate security? that's a real issue. why were these decisions made? the question, then, of the talking points, what did the cia provide, why was the intelligence community late in apparently getting the points right? it's not the first time we've seen things like that. it's worth looking at. but the idea that a month later, we're still focusing on this rather than basic questions of foreign policy on how to deal with terrorism in these areas. seems to me we are missing
was removed from u.n. ambassador susan rice's talking points. in the days following the deadly assault, rice said administration believed the attack was a reaction to an anti-islamic video. but, an associated press report says former cia director david petraeus testified on friday that he believed all along that the attack on the consulate was a terrorist strike. >> so let's -- before we set up these clips, let's make sure we set this up right. so we've been hearing, mark halperin, that susan rice said what she said because she was reading straight intel from the cia. we find out from david tet pet trace, this isn't true. that immediately david petraeus and intel officials knew this was an al qaeda attack. right? >> it's still kind of confusing. >> i'm basing that on "the new york times" reports and everything that i read through the weekend. >> totality of the reporting is there was another line coming out of the closed hearing was that they didn't want to say everything they knew in public because they didn't want the terrorists to know that tus government was on to them. >> i heard that.
that has nothing to do with health food. >> it's turning into a proxy war between senator john mccain and u.n. ambassador susan rice. top intelligence officials say they knew from the beginning that terrorism was involved in the attacks but kept rice's comments vague to avoid compromising future legal proceedings. they knew terrorism was involved but didn't know whether the attacks were planned in advance and they didn't have the suspect's identity. still, many house repub cans are saying he's unfit to succeed secretary clinton at the state department. >> i'm just curious. john heilman, first of all -- >> elizabeth warren. >> let's just say what happened, okay? the president's punch line was al qaeda is on the run, blah, blah, blah. they politicized intel. guess what, white houses do that. i'm not shocked, i'm not stunned. i wish they wouldn't have done it. but how do you protect americans in the future and what happened after the ambassador was already killed? but how long has susan rice been in public service, like since her 20s, right? >> a long time. >> so we actually have people on capit
think it is important. that susan wright, the un embassy came out on the five talk shows that said it was because of the video that the libya attack happened. look at what 60 minutes released on line. there are long passages and questions about whether or not it was a terrorism attack look at this and then you judge why they left it out sunday night after susan wright said it was the video. >> steve: steve croft asked the president. you went out of the way to avoid the word terrorism in connection with the statue of liberty attack. >> brian: mitt romney said the same thing >> chris: can they said his was political. the president responded it was too early to tell how it came about. it was an attack on americans. the president is rehuctant to call it terrorism. he said what group was involved. if there was a group involved with rpg's and knew within two hours afterwards that an affiliate of al-qaida claimed responsibility on social media and for the president to say we don't know which group? it is terrorist. >> gretchen: it is it why that was important story not included in the ori
bridge. stay right here. une. nobody said an all-in-one had to be bulky. or that you had to print from your desk. at least, nobody said it to us. introducing the business smart inkjet all-in-one series from brother. easy to use, it's the ultimate combination of speed, small size, and low-cost printing. >>> we have breaking economic data, a few minutes away from the closely watched weekly jobless claims and third quarter productivity numbers, all that and more after this quick break. that puts us in control. our abundant natural gas is already saving us money, producing cleaner electricity, putting us to work here in america and supporting wind and solar. though all energy development comes with some risk, we're committed to safely and responsibly producing natural gas. it's not a dream. america's natural gas... putting us in control of our energy future, now. he loves risk. but whether he's climbing everest, scuba diving the great barrier reef with sharks, or jumping into the market, he goes with people he trusts, which is why he trades with a company that doesn't nickel and dime him w
again. >> hey, joe. >> you know, susan rice, our u.n. ambassador, has been taking a lot of heat. john mccain, lindsey graham going after her for repeating what the president says was the intel that was available at the time. you're on the committee. can you tell us, was susan rice, from what you know, just repeating what was being told to everybody in washington at the time on what had happened in benghazi? >> well, here's what i think, joe. i think without question, i mean, you know, you've got guys storming a consulate with ak-47s, with rpgs and firing mortars. they knew immediately this was a terrorist attack. there wasn't any question about that. and why the white house didn't come out and say that immediately, i don't know. they tried to soften it somewhat with regard to it was a spontaneous action that stemmed from a protest. there was a question about whether protesters were there. and five days later, susan rice goes on tv and says that not only was it a protest, but it apparently stemmed from this trailer or this movie that had been shown. and very honestly by that point in time
. the un, everybody involved. egypt trying to broker peace also. what does the president need to do to move this process forward? >> he needs to get engaged. he needs to get engaged very seriously. i was struck this morning by looking at the papers, at the consensus expressed by "the washington post" editorial, which is very good, sometimes i disagree with them, but it's very good today, and a couple columnists on the op-ed page, and they all say the same thing which i endorse. namely, this is a real challenge to get at the heart of the problems. if we simply patch this up, somehow or other, between hamas and israel, be if we still patch it up a little bit between the palestinian authority and israel, we'll have a repetition in no time flat. but in the meantime two things are happening in the region, which are not going to be reversed easily. u.s. influence is declining, arab radicalism is intensifying. and that's not a good thing either for stability or the future of israel. >> how does the president engage most constructively to try to reverse at least one of those two trends to stop the
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)